[PATCH] c++: further lookup_member simplification

[PATCH] c++: further lookup_member simplification

[Patrick Palka]

As a followup to r12-7656-gffe9c0a0d3564a, this minor patch condenses
the handling of ambiguity and access w.r.t. the value of 'protect' so
that it more clearly matches the function comment.

Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
trunk?

gcc/cp/ChangeLog:

	* search.cc (lookup_member): Simplify by handling all values
	of protect at once in case of ambiguous lookup.  Don't modify
	protect.
---
 gcc/cp/search.cc | 32 +++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
index 85e3e7cb487..b86b3a24080 100644
--- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
+++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
@@ -1168,27 +1168,21 @@ lookup_member (tree xbasetype, tree name, int protect, bool want_type,
   if (rval_binfo)
     type = BINFO_TYPE (rval_binfo);
 
-  /* If we are not interested in ambiguities, don't report them;
-     just return NULL_TREE.  */
-  if (!protect && lfi.ambiguous)
-    return NULL_TREE;
-
-  if (protect == 2)
-    {
-      if (lfi.ambiguous)
-	return lfi.ambiguous;
-      else
-	protect = 0;
-    }
-
-  if (protect == 1 && lfi.ambiguous)
+  if (lfi.ambiguous)
     {
-      if (complain & tf_error)
+      if (protect == 0)
+	return NULL_TREE;
+      else if (protect == 1)
 	{
-	  error ("request for member %qD is ambiguous", name);
-	  print_candidates (lfi.ambiguous);
+	  if (complain & tf_error)
+	    {
+	      error ("request for member %qD is ambiguous", name);
+	      print_candidates (lfi.ambiguous);
+	    }
+	  return error_mark_node;
 	}
-      return error_mark_node;
+      else if (protect == 2)
+	return lfi.ambiguous;
     }
 
   if (!rval)
@@ -1213,7 +1207,7 @@ lookup_member (tree xbasetype, tree name, int protect, bool want_type,
 
     only the first call to "f" is valid.  However, if the function is
     static, we can check.  */
-  if (protect && !really_overloaded_fn (rval))
+  if (protect == 1 && !really_overloaded_fn (rval))
     {
       tree decl = is_overloaded_fn (rval) ? get_first_fn (rval) : rval;
       decl = strip_using_decl (decl);
-- 
2.35.1.500.gb896f729e2

Re: [PATCH] c++: further lookup_member simplification

[Jason Merrill]

On 3/15/22 13:18, Patrick Palka wrote:
> As a followup to r12-7656-gffe9c0a0d3564a, this minor patch condenses
> the handling of ambiguity and access w.r.t. the value of 'protect' so
> that it more clearly matches the function comment.
> 
> Bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, does this look OK for
> trunk?

OK.

> gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
> 
> 	* search.cc (lookup_member): Simplify by handling all values
> 	of protect at once in case of ambiguous lookup.  Don't modify
> 	protect.
> ---
>   gcc/cp/search.cc | 32 +++++++++++++-------------------
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/search.cc b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> index 85e3e7cb487..b86b3a24080 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/search.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cp/search.cc
> @@ -1168,27 +1168,21 @@ lookup_member (tree xbasetype, tree name, int protect, bool want_type,
>     if (rval_binfo)
>       type = BINFO_TYPE (rval_binfo);
>   
> -  /* If we are not interested in ambiguities, don't report them;
> -     just return NULL_TREE.  */
> -  if (!protect && lfi.ambiguous)
> -    return NULL_TREE;
> -
> -  if (protect == 2)
> -    {
> -      if (lfi.ambiguous)
> -	return lfi.ambiguous;
> -      else
> -	protect = 0;
> -    }
> -
> -  if (protect == 1 && lfi.ambiguous)
> +  if (lfi.ambiguous)
>       {
> -      if (complain & tf_error)
> +      if (protect == 0)
> +	return NULL_TREE;
> +      else if (protect == 1)
>   	{
> -	  error ("request for member %qD is ambiguous", name);
> -	  print_candidates (lfi.ambiguous);
> +	  if (complain & tf_error)
> +	    {
> +	      error ("request for member %qD is ambiguous", name);
> +	      print_candidates (lfi.ambiguous);
> +	    }
> +	  return error_mark_node;
>   	}
> -      return error_mark_node;
> +      else if (protect == 2)
> +	return lfi.ambiguous;
>       }
>   
>     if (!rval)
> @@ -1213,7 +1207,7 @@ lookup_member (tree xbasetype, tree name, int protect, bool want_type,
>   
>       only the first call to "f" is valid.  However, if the function is
>       static, we can check.  */
> -  if (protect && !really_overloaded_fn (rval))
> +  if (protect == 1 && !really_overloaded_fn (rval))
>       {
>         tree decl = is_overloaded_fn (rval) ? get_first_fn (rval) : rval;
>         decl = strip_using_decl (decl);